4 ms·
That's a good point assuming that's all under their control. But one of the highest performers "Destiny" decided to end their relationship abruptly. This led
by ghostbrainalpha 8y ago
That's a good point assuming that's all under their control.
But one of the highest performers "Destiny" decided to end their relationship abruptly. This led to a bunch of marketing staff with jobs dedicated to a product that doesn't exist anymore and a bunch of under performing products that can't necessarily absorb those jobs.
Its not Destiny's job to subsidize that staff and those B-Tier games. But its unfair to frame this as layoffs amid record profits when its so obvious that next year is going to be a completely different situation that Blizzard had no way to prepare for.
- alexgmcm 8y agoDestiny 2 was underperforming. It was mentioned in the earnings call yesterday.
- ghostbrainalpha 8y agoUnder performing compared to analysts predictions, which affects stock price. That doesn't necessarily mean they lost money working on Destiny. And even if it they were negative, when Destiny left Blizzard still abruptly has an excess of dedicated support staff for a game they are no longer working with. If a Hurricane destroyed Disneyland... Disney would have to a shareholder responsibility to lay off the workers from that park while they rebuilt. It's not a reflection of corporate greed, but a fundamental part of decision making.
- cloverich 8y agoI was under the impression Layoff was technically different from firing only in: We are ending our relationship with this employee, and _not_ looking for someone to replace their existing responsibilities. I'm honestly confused by all the uproar -- it seems like relatively predictable and expected behavior.